PADRON ZEQUEIRA v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-12No. No. 20-72356

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied.

Eduardo Padron Zequeira, a Cuban citizen, appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals' rejection of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection claims. The court found substantial evidence supported an adverse credibility finding against Zequeira because his account of a November 2018 encounter with Cuban police officers grew more detailed and severe as it progressed from his credible fear interview through his asylum application to his testimony before the immigration judge. He initially described being hit in the stomach and slapped, then later claimed he was beaten with batons, and finally stated that police stood on his knees causing lasting pain—changes that amounted to inconsistencies and embellishments rather than mere omissions of detail.

The court also found that Zequeira failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence, such as medical documentation, to support his claims despite having the opportunity to do so. His explanation that his doctor could only provide a certificate in an employment capacity was deemed insufficient to establish that such evidence was genuinely unavailable. Additionally, because Zequeira did not argue in his opening brief that the BIA erred regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, he forfeited that issue.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Credibility findings based on inconsistent and embellished testimony
Sufficiency of corroborating evidence in asylum cases
Forfeiture of claims not argued in opening brief
Burden of proof in demonstrating unavailability of medical documentation

Procedural posture

Petitioner sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection claims.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Eduardo Padron Zequeira, a citizen of Cuba, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that denied Petitioners request for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agencys adverse credibility finding. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). The immigration judge (“IJ”) noted that the extent of Petitioners injuries “seem[s] to expand with each telling.” Indeed, Petitioners description of the events of November 7, 2018—the most severe interaction that Petitioner allegedly had with Cuban officials before he came to the United States—evolved. During Petitioners credible fear interview, he stated that the police hit him in the stomach and slapped him in the face. In his asylum application, Petitioner stated that the police beat him with batons. Then, while testifying in front of the IJ, Petitioner said—for the first time—that police stood on his knees and caused pain that recurs to this day.

Although the omission of details cannot form the sole basis of an adverse credibility finding, Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1166–67 (9th Cir. 2000), inconsistencies and embellishments in the basis of the asylum claim are sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination, Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). Considering that Petitioners basis for seeking asylum is persecution due to political opinion, inconsistent statements about the severity of the harm that he suffered at the hands of government officials rise above the level of mere omission of detail. Petitioners explanations—which fail to explain his omissions—do not compel a contrary result.

2. Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Petitioner failed to present sufficient corroborating evidence to rehabilitate his testimony or independently meet his burden of proof. Petitioner provides no explanation for why he lacks medical documentation to support his claim. In his briefing, Petitioner relies on his testimony before the IJ where he stated that “[his doctor was] only able to do a certificate like as an employer because otherwise they are not able to do it.” This comment does not compel us to conclude that corroborating evidence is unavailable to Petitioner. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).

3. In his opening brief, Petitioner did not argue that the BIA erred in rejecting his claim for CAT protection. Therefore, Petitioner has forfeited that issue. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

PETITION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL DENIED AS MOOT.

FOOTNOTES

. The IJ also found it implausible that petitioner could have a grown adult stand on his knee but not require medical attention.

. The IJ also found petitioners demeanor “evasive,” a finding that Petitioner does not challenge.